Response to the Scottish Parliament s Finance and Constitution Committee Call for Evidence
|
|
- Alfred Sparks
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1
2 Funding of EU Competences Funding of EU Competences Response to the Scottish Parliament s Finance and Constitution Committee Call for Evidence Nicolo Bird David Phillips Institute for Fiscal Studies Note David Phillips is an Associate Director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, with responsibility for leading analysis of local and devolved government finance, and taxation in developing countries. Nicolo Bird is a project research officer at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. However, the views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors only; the IFS has no corporate views. 2
3
4 1. Introduction This note is a response to the consultation from the Finance and Constitution Committee of the Scottish Parliament concerning the funding of devolved competences which are currently funded at a European Union (EU) level, and options available for how these funds will be distributed across the UK. This response covers the following areas: How existing EU funds are allocated and how much Scotland receives. The Barnett formula, including how it works, and its appropriateness as a way of allocating replacement funds. Some of the pros and cons of other ways of allocating funding post-brexit. At the start, it is worthwhile highlighting that the likely ending of the UK s current contributions to and receipts from the EU budget is only one of the effects Brexit is expected have on the UK s (and hence Scotland s) public finances. Indeed, if Brexit affects the size and composition of the economy, the effect of this on the public finances (via both spending and revenues) could be larger than the impact of changes in contributions to and receipts from the EU budget. Indeed, in its assessment in the 2016 Autumn Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast that in , the economic effects of Brexit would lead to an increase in borrowing of 15 billion larger than the UK s net contribution to the EU budget of around 10 billion. 1 Note also that in the draft agreement with the EU, the UK has agreed to take part in EU programmes until the end of 2020, and continue contributions to the EU for liabilities incurred up until the end of this period The OBR estimates that incorporating these, the UK will still be contributing a net 5 billion to the EU in This wider fiscal context should be borne in mind when considering the likely impact of Brexit on government spending in Scotland, and the funding available for schemes to replace existing EU programmes. 2. An overview of major EU funding schemes Broadly speaking, there are two different types of funding that the UK and Scottish governments may want to replace post-brexit: pre-allocated funds, such as the common agricultural policy (CAP) and the structural funds for economic development, that are agreed to at the outset of the EU s seven year budget cycle (the multi-annual finance framework (MFF), and; competitive funds, e.g. Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+, which involve competitive bidding for funding against other projects across the EU. Pre-allocated funds are largely aimed at disadvantaged geographical areas or economic sectors. Therefore, pre-allocated funds are most likely based on some 1 2 Office for Budget Responsibility, Economic and Fiscal Outlook November 2016, 2016, available at: Note that the 15 billion figure was based on a relatively smooth transition in a no deal scenario, in which the UK reverted to World Trade Organisation rules, the economic effects could be much larger. And they could continue grow beyond See, for instance, Dhingra et al, The costs and benefits of leaving the EU: trade effects, Economic Policy, Vol 32. Pp : Office for Budget Responsibility, Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2018, 2018, available at: 4
5 characteristics linked to specific needs or priority areas (for instance, promoting growth in less developed regions, or investing in agricultural sustainability). Conversely, competitive funds are aimed to support the best projects available across Europe, sometimes regardless of needs or location. For example, high-quality research might have significant positive externalities from which the entire EU - and indeed world - can benefit. Table 1 shows the amount of EU funds pre-allocated to the UK over the period. The sources of EU spending are divided into two broad categories: European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs), and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Table 1. Pre-allocated EU funding in the UK over the period bn European Structural and Investment Funds 17.2 European Regional Development Fund 5.8 European Social Fund 4.9 Youth Employment Initiative 0.2 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 0.2 European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development / CAP, Pillar European Agricultural Guarantee Fund / CAP, Pillar Source: Table 1 from Ayers and Brien (2018). Structural funds The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) together are referred to as the structural funds. The ERDF is focused on innovation and research, support for SMEs, improving digital infrastructure and decarbonising the economy. Meanwhile, the ESF funds projects to increase labour market mobility, education and skills and enhance institutional capacity. How these funds are spent depends on both decisions taken at a European and national (and sub-national) level. After initial allocations of funds are made by the EU, member state governments (and sub-national governments to which authority is devolved to) have significant autonomy in managing the allocated funds. Structural funds are allocated by the EU to regions within member states largely depending on their GDP per capita: Regions with GDP per capita below 75% of the EU average are designated as less developed regions and are receiving 52% of total structural funds in the current MFF period covering the period ; Regions whose GDP per capita is between 75% and 90% of the EU average are designated transition regions and are receiving 12%; Regions with GDP per capita above 90% of the EU average are receiving 16%. 5
6 There are other elements to the rules for determining exact regional entitlement to these funds which depend on a combination of regional employment rates, number of unemployed people, population size and density, and educational attainment. 3 Importantly, these rules can create big discontinuities, as slight GDP or GNI per capita increases can lead to dramatic drops in funding. The discontinuity between less developed and transition regions is particularly salient. Governments can however rebalance how structural funds from the EU formula are allocated with the consent of the European Commission. For instance, during the allocation of structural funds, the UK Government deviated from the framework set out by the EU formula by reallocating funds to devolved governments, due to the considerable budget cuts to these administrations that would have otherwise occurred following the new EU formula used for that MFF period. Common Agriculture Policy Pillar 1, the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, supports farmers incomes in the form of direct payments and market-support measures according to the regulations set by the EU; while Pillar 2, the European Agricultural Rural Development Fund, provides more flexible support to promote development objectives in rural areas. CAP funds are allocated to member states and are then distributed within the member state. There is also an option to transfer funding to, or from, their respective national rural development allocations. In the UK, CAP budgets are first allocated by Westminster, after which these are administered by the devolved governments. They can then decide which of the various direct payment schemes to finance from this allocation subject to certain legislative limits. There are also a set of fixed rules that apply to all member states: 30 percent of payments must be conditional on farmer engaging in greening activities covering at least 5 percent of the eligible area. Member states must increase payments to young farmers by at least 25 percent, though these payments must not exceed 2 percent of the total spending on direct payments. Member states must undertake some form of redistribution between those entitled to large and small direct payments. 4 The joint aims of the two Pillars of the CAP are to: support viable food production, with a particular focus on income support for farmers; promote sustainable management of agricultural land, including boosting biodiversity and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and lastly, boost employment and growth and tackle poverty in rural areas. It is worth noting that although the first pillar is entirely financed by the EU, the second-pillar programmes are co-financed by EU funds, and regional, national or local funds The detailed selection criteria for allocating structural funds can be found in Annex VII of the official regulation: For a summary of the selection criteria, see Section 4.1 in Browne, J., Johnson, P. and Phillips, D., The budget of the European Union: a guide, IFS Briefing Note BN181, 2016 available at: See Section 4.2 of Browne, J., Johnson, P. and Phillips, D., ibid, See: html. 6
7 Although the rules for determining how much each country receives from the overall CAP budget are not published, allocations to EU member states for direct payments were historically based on farm production. However, this practice was ended in the early 2000s, and allocations are converging towards a common amount per hectare of agricultural land. 6 Other Funds Other pre-allocated investment funds include the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), which promote labour market outcomes for under 25 year olds and support fishing communities, respectively. In addition to the pre-allocated funding for Member States to manage, there are many different competitive funds that connect programme participants directly to the source of funding (there are no designated country allocations). In general, organisations apply to agencies of the European Commission for funding from these streams following calls for applications. Some of the most important programmes of the period are Horizon 2020 (H2020) with a budget of 77 billion, the Connecting Europe Facility with 22 billion and Erasmus+ with 15 billion Current EU funding in Scotland Table 2 shows the main areas of European funding in Scotland between 2014 and At 3,729 million, the majority of EU funding comes from Pillar 1 of the CAP million was allocated to structural funds to promote economic development in Scotland, although as of 2016 nearly 530m of this was still to be committed. 845m was allocated towards CAP Pillar 2 and 108m to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. Total funding over the period amounts to over 5.6 billion. Information on EU competitive funding secured by Scottish organisations is scarce although, at least recently, Scotland has been relatively successful in accessing competitive funds. McIver and Wakefield (2016) found that by July 2016, Scottish organisations had secured 250 million of Horizon 2020 funding, which represents 11.4 percent of the total secured by the UK. 9 Scotland has also benefitted from 65 million in Erasmus+ funding over the period, which represents 12.8 percent of the total secured by the UK The distribution is based on historical entitlements but with an adjustment over the current MFF period such that member states who previously received less than 90% of the average payment per hectare make up one third of the gap to 90% of the average by 2020, and all member states receive at least 196 per hectare in the same year. This is offset by a reduction in the per hectare amount for those member states who receive more than the EU average. On top of the abovementioned programmes, the EU s budget also provides funding to other areas, where it often shares responsibility with national governments including: science and technology; market regulation; consumer protection; transnational policing; border control, migration and asylum; and foreign aid. Central administrative costs make up around 6% of the budget a figure which excludes the costs countries themselves bear to administer EU spending and policy. Note that this figure and the figure for Pillar 2 of the CAP account for the fact that the Scottish Government decided to transfer 367m from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 funding. McIver, I. and Wakefield, S., European Union Funding in Scotland , SPICe Briefing Note 16/89, 2016, available at: Erasmus+ statistics: 7
8 Table 2. EU Funding in Scotland, m European Structural and Investment Funds 1,894 Structural Funds 941 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 108 European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development / CAP, Pillar European Agricultural Guarantee Fund / CAP, Pillar 1 3,729 Total 5,623 Note: Structural Funds are comprised of the ERDF and ESF combined. The figures account for 367m transferred from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 of the CAP. Source: McIver and Wakefield, ibid, Should the Barnett formula play a role in allocating funding to replace existing EU funding streams? The draft agreement between the EU and UK on the UK s withdrawal from the EU states that the UK will continue to take part in EU programmes until the end of the current MFF in December Furthermore, the UK government s Environment Secretary has said that direct payments to farmers would be guaranteed at their current level until the 2022 UK general election in England, with funding for devolved governments to continue with their schemes until this date too. However, beyond that point there are big decisions to be taken about how to allocate any funding that will replace these EU schemes. The consultation issued by the Finance and Constitution Committee asks for views on the extent to which the Barnett formula would provide an appropriate mechanism for funding competences returning from the EU to the Scottish budget. In this section we briefly discuss the Barnett formula and its appropriateness as a mechanism for allocating funding that is returning from the EU. What is the Barnett formula? The Barnett formula was introduced in 1979 to mechanically determine the year-to-year changes in the block grant funding the Scottish Government receives from Westminster. Since the devolution of a number of additional taxes, commencing in , this block grant has been adjusted to account for these new revenue streams. However, the Barnett formula continues to be used to determine the changes in the underlying block grant (prior to these adjustments) each year. The underlying block grant in any year consists of the prior year s block grant plus a change in the amount calculated using the Barnett formula. Under the formula, the 11 Source: Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, available at: en. 8
9 change in the block grant depends on changes in the departmental expenditure limits (DELs) of UK government departments; the share of that department s functions that are devolved to Scotland (summarised by a comparability percentage ); and Scotland s population as a proportion of England s (or England and Wales). Cash change in DEL of UK government department x Department s comparability percentage x Scotland s population share The overall change is then the sum of the changes implied by changes in the DEL of each UK government department. The Barnett formula is inappropriate for allocating replacement funding The Barnett formula therefore aims at providing an equal pounds-per-person increase in funding for the Scottish Government as the change in funding for comparable public services in England. But this can be a problem, and there is another flaw which means that the Barnett formula is inappropriate for use in allocating funding to replace existing EU funding streams. To summarise, the key issues with using the Barnett formula are: First, the Barnett formula simply calculates changes in funding year-to-year. It does not say how the initial level of funding should be determined. Second, if initial allocations were similar to existing EU allocations, Scotland s allocation per person would be substantially higher than England s. If the replacement funds increased in cash terms over time, the equal pounds-per-person increase provided by the Barnett Formula would represent a smaller percentage increase in Scottish funding. Thus, over time, funding per person in Scotland would converge towards funding per person in England. This convergence is known as the Barnett squeeze. In practice, lower population growth in Scotland has largely prevented the Barnett squeeze from happening for existing funding allocated according to the Formula. This relates to another flaw in the formula: it does not properly take into account (differences in) population growth. 12 Under the Barnett formula, the funding per person received by Scotland would be lower the higher is population growth relative to England s. So over time, the use of the Barnett formula could lead to a relative squeeze on the amount of funding Scotland receives to replace EU funding; and the amount received per person would be sensitive to relative population growth in Scotland. This all seems undesirable. 5. The pros and cons of different post-brexit funding options It would be possible to use an amended formula that did not suffer from the issues identified above. For instance, if one wanted to deliver the same percentage change in 12 This reflects the fact that while the population shares used to calculate changes in the block grant are updated, the existing level of the block grant is not updated as relative population shares change. 9
10
11 Needs and disadvantage: By basing changes in funding only on changes in funding in England and changes in population, such an approach would not take account of changes in Scotland s relative need for funding. For instance, if areas of Scotland became relatively more economically disadvantaged, there would be no increase in funding for regional economic development (unlike under existing EU schemes). Other policy objectives: More generally, such a mechanical approach means the allocation to Scotland would not really take into account the purpose for which the funding is ultimately being used for. This includes things like promoting economic growth, environmental sustainability, or more broadly areas which might have positive externalities. There could also be scope for more competitive or outcome-based criteria. There is therefore a trade-off between simplicity, flexibility and discretion on the one hand, and targeting of funding at particular areas or particular outcomes on the other. We now discuss considerations related to these for the different policy areas currently funded by EU programmes. Options and issues for regional development funding The first question to address is whether EU funding aimed at promoting economic development, particularly in disadvantaged regions, should be replaced by new UK or devolved government schemes. Related to this it will be important to consider what the objectives of any such funding are such as: promoting and supporting economic growth; reducing regional disparities; reducing intra-regional socio-economic inequalities; and promoting environmentally sustainable development; etc. Alongside this it will be important to consider how any post-brexit funding sits alongside other elements of UK and Scottish economic and regional policy. This includes schemes operated by the UK Government (such as City Deals and the Industrial Strategy) and schemes operated by the Scottish Government (such as the Scottish Business Pledge, Scottish Economic Strategy and Highlands and Islands Enterprise). Bachtler and Begg (2017), highlight how regional development policy has suffered from instability and inconsistency in approaches. 13 There are further practical issues that would need to be addressed in designing regional funding policy: What characteristics should be used for assessing need for regional funding, and at what geographical level should such assessments take place? As already mentioned, allocations of EU funding to regions are based on GDP per capita, as well as regional employment and unemployment rates, population size and density, educational attainment and geographical remoteness. An obvious question is therefore whether these are the right characteristics to base funding allocations on, or whether there are other characteristics that should be used. This could include measures of deprivation (such as the Index of Multiple Deprivation), inequality measures (such as inequalities in earnings, or household incomes) and updated measures more suitable for UK or Scottish contexts (such as different measures of population sparseness or geographical remoteness). 13 Bachtler, J. and Begg, I., Cohesion policy after Brexit: the economic, social and institutional challenges, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 4, pp
12
13 regions, with big differences in GDP per capita and funding allocations between the Highlands and Islands (allocated 386 Euros per person under current EU schemes) and the rest of Scotland (allocated 132 Euros). The question of how redistributive/targeted the funding should be links to its purpose: e.g. whether it is aimed at reducing geographical socio-economic inequalities, or boosting growth more generally. At what level of government should decisions on allocations of funding to broad thematic areas and particular projects be taken? Currently, for instance, the Scottish Government s European Structure Fund Division makes allocations (each of more than 15 million) to other government departments, agencies and local authorities, structured around specific themes and aims. These organisations (termed lead partners ) then allocate funds to particular projects and other organisations ( implementing partners ). Post-Brexit there will be a decision of whether this approach is correct. Should strategic decisions be taken at a higher level (e.g. the UK level) or at a lower level (e.g. a regional level within Scotland)? Should decisions about specific projects be taken at a higher or lower level than now (e.g. at the Scottish Government level, or at sub-local authority level)? One benefit of taking decisions at a higher level is that it may allow better value for money and greater impact as the best projects from a wider geographic area will be considered and funded. However, taking decisions at a lower level may allow funding to be targeted more at particular areas, and local knowledge to be taken into account when allocating funds. Should the funding be ring-fenced for developmental purposes or should the organisations (such as Scottish Government or local authorities) to whom funding is allocated have much more discretion over its uses? Ring-fencing funding for projects with a clear focus on socio-economic development may aid in the evaluation and transparency of funds. However, allowing greater discretion would allow government bodies (such as the Scottish Government or (groups of) local authorities) to spend money on areas they deem to be local priorities. This could include services not generally thought of as being related to economic development (such as health, social care, or general education) but which nonetheless could have significant impacts on economic and more general wellbeing. How frequently and to what extent should allocations be updated to account for changing socio-economic conditions of different areas? Currently, EU funds are allocated for seven year periods based on characteristics measured several years prior to the start of the funding period: for the period, these years were A new assessment is made prior to the start of each MFF period, and the characteristics (and often the rules) are updated at that point, which could lead to changes in the relative funding allocations for different regions. Damping arrangements mean that in the current period, regions receive at least 60% of the amount they received during the previous MFF period if their updated characteristics imply they would otherwise receive less. 14 There is provision for a reassessment based on GDP in the period , but this does not appear to have been utilised. 13
14 It would be possible to update the assessments more or less frequently under a replacement scheme. There is also the possibility of undertaking partial rather than full reassessments, so that changes in characteristics are only partially taken into account when updating funding assessments. A key trade off here is between redistribution/targeting on the one hand, and incentives on the other. 15 More frequent and fuller updates mean that funding is targeted more closely at areas based on the characteristics felt to reflect their need for funding. But this also reduces the incentive for the public bodies allocated funding (such as the Scottish Government and local authorities) from taking action to improve socio-economic characteristics: such improvements see reductions in funding levels in future. Is there a role for outcomes as well as characteristics in determining funding allocations? One way to address this concern would be to base some of the funding on outcome measures as well as local/regional characteristics. For instance, a fairly mechanical approach could be that as well as negatively depending on the level of GDP (some years prior), re-assessed allocations could depend positively on the growth rate of GDP. They could also depend upon evaluations of the projects funded by previous funding rounds, and more generally, of the economic and other policies of the areas in question: although the more subjective the assessments are made, the greater the scope for disagreement and a lack of transparency. Is there a role for competitive bidding between areas for funding allocations, as well as being projects within those areas? Under present arrangements, funding is allocated to regions, and formal or informal competitive bidding is used to determine which projects to fund within that region. It would be possible to keep some (or all) funding back under a replacement scheme for competitive bids between regions. This would provide maximum flexibility for the government operating such a scheme (which could be the UK Government or Scottish Government) and could improve value for money, but could lead to funding being less targeted at the most disadvantaged areas. Choices in this area should again reflect the overarching aims of any replacement regional development funding. Finally, it is worth noting that the Conservative Party 2017 election manifesto committed it to a Shared Prosperity Fund. It said this fund would be:...specifically designed to reduce inequalities between communities across our four nations. The money that is spent will help deliver sustainable, inclusive growth based on our modern industrial strategy. We will consult widely on the design of the fund, including with the devolved administrations, local authorities, businesses and public bodies. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund will be cheap to administer, low in bureaucracy and targeted where it is needed most. 16 As yet, no further details on how the scheme will operate and at what level it will operate have been published Another trade-off is between targeting and stability/certainty. Fuller and more frequent resets mean funding could be less certain, which might discourage organisations receiving funding from planning long-term interventions, instead going for quicker wins, in case funding is not continued. Conservative Party, Forward, Together: Our plan for a Stronger Britain and a Prosperous Future,
15 Options and issues for agricultural funding The replacement of CAP funds in the UK is a broad and complex issue which has already been covered in greater detail elsewhere. 17 As highlighted already the UK Government has pledged to maintain the same cash funds of support for farmers (as they receive under the CAP) until the 2022 UK general election. What system will be in place beyond that is as yet unclear although a transition period involving some direct payments is expected to last until at least 2024, and the UK Government has stated that future payments to farmers will be based on their contribution to public goods, most notably environmental enhancement. 18 It has also stated that it will work with the devolved governments to ensure the overall framework for funding to replace the CAP works for the whole of the UK. This brings us to some of the key questions that need to be addressed when designing this replacement funding: What are the purposes of agricultural funding? The UK Government has clearly highlighted the provision of public goods including environmental enhancements. But there are other potential objectives from such funding, which include: supporting farmers incomes; broader rural development; food security; improving animal welfare standards; boosting productivity; and export promotion. There may be trade-offs between these different objectives. For instance, it is possible that environmental enhancements and improved animal welfare standards might reduce agricultural production and therefore impact food security and exports. Transfers aimed at boosting farmers incomes may discourage exit of less productive farmers, limiting the scope for entry or expansion of more productive farmers, impacting on productivity. How much flexibility should devolved (or local) governments have over funding? The most appropriate balance between these different objectives might differ according to local characteristics and preferences. There is therefore a question of how much flexibility devolved (or indeed local or regional) governments should have in the allocation of agricultural funding. The CAP increasingly allows for such flexibility and there is a question of whether a UK scheme should allow more flexibility or less (perhaps on the grounds of ensuring fair competition within the UK market). 19 How should funding be allocated across the UK? As discussed, the EU has been aiming to move towards allocating funding to member-states using a common per hectare basis. However, in part as a result of historic allocation systems based on production as opposed to land area, the amount per hectare currently varies significantly across EU member states and within EU member states, including the UK. Scottish Government statistics indicate that Scotland was host to one third of UK agricultural land in 2016 but it received just 17% of CAP Pillar 1 payments in that year. 20 This reflects the fact a large fraction of Scottish agricultural land is grass and rough grazing rather than crop-land, which is concentrated in England Downing, E. and Coe, S., Brexit: Future UK agriculture policy, Briefing Paper No. 8218, House of Commons Library, HM Government, A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment, Downing, E. and Coe, S., ibid, 2018, argue that under the CAP, the systems in operation in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have diverged significantly to reflect differing needs and priorities. Chapter 10 of the Agriculture in the United Kingdom datasets, available at: 15
16 The Scottish Government has challenged this allocation of CAP funding and it therefore seems that the rules for determining allocations to devolved governments / parts of the UK are likely to be contentious. Finally, it is worth noting that the replacement of CAP is just one of several key issues posed by Brexit for the agricultural sector, including tariffs, and market access between the UK and the EU for agricultural products. Options and issues for research and innovation funding The last area of funding we discuss in this note is research and innovation funding. What is the purpose of science and innovation funding? There are different ways in which science and innovation funds can be allocated depending on the objectives of this funding. Possible objectives include: o Producing public goods: making sure the projects that benefit wider society the most are being funded. o Promoting regional development: ensuring that organisations engaged in research and innovation in disadvantaged regions benefit relatively more from funding, in an effort to reduce geographical inequalities. At what level should decisions about funding allocations for research and innovation be made? If the aim of policy is to fund research with the highest potential for delivering public goods, then there would be a clear benefit from having competitive funding covering the largest possible geographic area. This could mean funding being determined at the UK level supplementing the budget of UK Research and Innovating, for instance, or the UK remaining in existing EU schemes (or their replacements) such as Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+. Some non-eu countries participate in these schemes (such as Norway or Turkey), generally making GNI-based contributions to the schemes overall costs. The possibility of the UK taking part in such arrangements depends upon agreements between the UK Government and EU. As noted previously, Scottish-based organisations have traditionally been relatively successful at winning such funding. In financial terms, Scotland might therefore receive more funding from UK-wide or EU-wide competitions than a Scotland-specific allocation (e.g. based on population), although the Scottish Government would then have relatively little control over funding priorities and decisions. Note that a UK-wide scheme (as well as a Scottish scheme) could take into account issues such as the promotion of research and development in disadvantaged regions, in addition to scientific quality and overall costs and benefits. However, the UK will have less influence on the priorities and design of future EU schemes from outside the EU even if it takes part in these schemes. 16
Preparations for replacing EU funding for Wales. Response to the Finance Committee of the National Assembly of Wales s Call for Evidence
Preparations for replacing EU funding for Wales Response to the Finance Committee of the National Assembly of Wales s Call for Evidence IFS Mimeo Nicolo Bird David Phillips Preparations for replacing EU
More informationCOMMON FRAMEWORKS NFU SCOTLAND EVIDENCE
COMMON FRAMEWORKS NFU SCOTLAND EVIDENCE Upon leaving the EU, the UK will also depart from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It is generally accepted by governments across the United Kingdom that a
More informationSummary of the Partnership Agreement for Hungary,
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26 August 2014 Summary of the Partnership Agreement for Hungary, 2014-2020 Overall information The Partnership Agreement (PA) covers five funds: the European Regional Development
More informationThe (Dis)United Kingdom? Ed Poole Cardiff University, Wales
The (Dis)United Kingdom? Ed Poole Cardiff University, Wales Overview Regional economic and industrial disparities in the UK How have the nations of the UK traditionally been funded? Scottish Independence
More informationHow is the EU budget distributed?
How is the EU budget distributed? A political agreement on the 2014 2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF) among European institutions was reached on 27 June 2013. The leaders of the European Parliament,
More informationSummary of the Partnership Agreement for Croatia,
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30 October 2014 Summary of the Partnership Agreement for Croatia, 2014-2020 Overall information The Partnership Agreement (PA) covers five funds: the European Regional Development
More informationPUBLIC SPENDING IN SCOTLAND: RELATIVITIES AND PRIORITIES
PUBLIC SPENDING IN SCOTLAND: RELATIVITIES AND PRIORITIES Prof JD Gallagher CB FRSE 17 September 2017 Working Paper 2017-01 A Gwilym Gibbon Centre for Public Policy Working Paper Public Spending in Scotland:
More informationA time of revolution: British local government finance in the 2010s
A time of revolution: British local government finance in the 2010s 26 October 2016 Broadway House, London The Local Government Finance and Devolution Consortium is generously supported by the following
More informationIntroduction. Detailed responses to the Committee s recommendations
Welsh Government Response to Recommendations from the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee Report: How is the Welsh Government preparing for Brexit? Introduction As outlined in the Cabinet
More informationThis week s update focuses on an update on the negotiations of the withdrawal agreement including publication of the latest draft withdrawal text.
ǀ This regular paper produced by SPICe sets out developments in the UK s negotiations to leave the European Union, the process for which has now formally begun following the Prime Minister s triggering
More informationEconomic aspects of Scottish independence: public spending and revenue
Economic aspects of Scottish independence: public spending and revenue Standard Note: SN/EP/6625 Last updated: 24 January 2014 Author: Section Dominic Webb Economic Policy and Statistics Section Much of
More informationHow large is the proposed. decline in EU agricultural and cohesion spending?
How large is the proposed decline in EU agricultural and cohesion spending? Zsolt Darvas and Nicolas Moës consider the next MFF, the gradual convergence of the regions and the reduction in the need for
More informationPOLICY BRIEFING. Structural and Investment Fund Strategies in England: Preliminary Guidance for Local Enterprise Partnerships
Structural and Investment Fund Strategies in England: Preliminary Guidance for Local Enterprise Partnerships Author: Andrew Jones, LGiU associate Date: 8 May 2013 Summary The Structural Funds and the Cohesion
More informationScotland's Fiscal Framework: Assessing the agreement
Scotland's Fiscal Framework: Assessing the agreement Executive Summary David Bell David Eiser David Phillips This analysis and accompanying paper were supported by funding from the Nuffield Foundation.
More informationThe main objectives of the eu rural development policy for
The main objectives of the eu rural development policy for 2014-2020 PhDs. Mihai Dinu Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania mihai.dinu@ymail.com ABSTRACT In this article will be
More informationLaunching the new and implementing the past Ensuring a seamless transition to the new programmes
Draft Budget 2014 Launching the new and implementing the past Ensuring a seamless transition to the new programmes Janusz Lewandowski Commissioner for Financial Programming and Budget COBU, 26 June 2013
More informationEU COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FUNDS IN ENGLAND INITIAL PROPOSALS FROM HMG NOVEMBER 2012
EU COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FUNDS IN ENGLAND 2014-2020 INITIAL PROPOSALS FROM HMG NOVEMBER 2012 WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES FOR TODAY? Present the Government s latest thinking for an EU Common Strategic
More information1. Context i/ Scottish parliament support to look at differentiation:
Scotland, Brexit and Differentiation This note summarises oral evidence given by Kirsty Hughes, Senior Fellow, Friends of Europe to the European Parliament Constitutional Affairs Committee, 9 th February
More informationEU Regional Policy. EU Structural Funds
EU Regional Policy EU Structural Funds EU Regional Policy Regional policy is the vehicle for delivering regional aid Biggest slice of the EU budget which helps: poorer regions catch up areas undergoing
More informationOutlook for Scotland s Public Finances and the Opportunities of Independence. May 2014
Outlook for Scotland s Public Finances and the Opportunities of Independence May 2014 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 Introduction and Overview... 5 Scotland s Public Finances 2008-09 to 2012-13...
More informationImplications of the EU Referendum on the Humber Economy
Implications of the EU Referendum on the Humber Economy Report to the Humber Leadership Board - 7 th Sept 2016 Report to the Humber LEP Board 9 th Sept 2016 Joint Report from Kishor Tailor on behalf of
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 30 November 2018 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 30 November 2018 (OR. en) 14759/18 LIMITE CADREFIN 376 RESPR 49 POLGEN 234 FIN 925 NOTE From: To: Subject: Presidency Permanent Representatives Committee/Council
More informationCOHESION POLICY
INTEGRATED SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COHESION POLICY 2014-2020 The new rules and legislation governing the next round of EU Cohesion Policy investment for 2014-2020 have been formally endorsed by the
More informationCOUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 6 June /12 CADREFIN 282 POLGEN 101
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 6 June 2012 10753/12 CADREFIN 282 POLG 101 NOTE from: Presidency to Delegations Subject: Multiannual Financial Framework (2014-2020) - Negotiating Box Delegations
More informationAdult social care funding: a local or national responsibility?
Adult social care funding: a local or national responsibility? IFS Briefing note BN227 Neil Amin-Smith David Phillips Polly Simpson Adult social care funding: a local or national responsibility? Neil Amin-Smith
More informationThe Fiscal Framework and the Scottish Budget Process: Some Thoughts
The Fiscal Framework and the Scottish Budget Process: Some Thoughts David Phillips Budget Process Review Group, 19/12/2016 Coming up Operation of the fiscal framework Who forecasts what Initial adjustments
More informationThe EU: your questions answered
1 The EU: your questions answered This booklet gives a brief overview of some of the issues and questions people have raised about the European Union. Many people have said that they don t have enough
More informationGovernment spending priorities
The s 2018/19 Budget is the 2nd of 5 budgets to be set this parliamentary term. It contained allocations for 2018/19 only (the last time a Scottish Budget provided anything beyond single year allocations
More informationTracking climate expenditure
istockphoto Tracking climate expenditure The common methodology for tracking and monitoring climate expenditure under the European Structural and Investment Funds (2014-2020) Climate Action Introduction
More informationResearch Briefing Budget Series 1: Funding Welsh devolution
Research Briefing Budget Series 1: Funding Welsh devolution Author: Dr Eleanor Roy Date: June 2013 National Assembly for Wales Research Service The National Assembly for Wales is the democratically elected
More informationLiz Truss MP 24 July 2018 Chief Secretary to the Treasury HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road London, SW1A 2HQ
European Union Committee House of Lords London SW1A 0PW Tel: 020 7219 5864 Fax: 020 7219 6715 euclords@parliament.uk www.parliament.uk/lords Liz Truss MP 24 July 2018 Chief Secretary to the Treasury HM
More informationQ&A on the legislative package of EU regional, employment and social policy for
MEMO/11/663 Brussels, 06 October 2011 Q&A on the legislative package of EU regional, employment and social policy for 2014-2020 Cohesion policy is implemented through programmes which run for the duration
More information13473/18 ACF/cd 1 DPG LIMITE EN
Council of the European Union Brussels, 5 November 2018 (OR. en) 13473/18 NOTE From: To: Presidency LIMITE CADREFIN 288 RESPR 41 POLGEN 191 FIN 824 Permanent Representatives Committee/Council Subject:
More informationB The EU financial settlement
B The EU financial settlement Introduction B.1 The effects of Brexit on the public finances are likely to be dominated by the indirect effects of changes in trade, migration and other policy regimes on
More informationCorporate tax setting: the devolution of corporation tax
Corporate tax setting: the devolution of corporation tax Helen Miller Devolution of corporation tax setting Rebalancing the Northern Ireland Economy (March 2011) discusses possible devolution of the power
More informationGuide to the new Scottish budget process
SPICe Briefing Pàipear-ullachaidh SPICe Guide to the new Scottish budget process Ross Burnside On 8 May 2018, the Scottish Parliament agreed to changes to the Written Agreement between the Finance and
More informationEU budget For 500 million Europeans For growth and employment. Citizenship, freedom, security and justice. The EU as a global player
EU budget 2012 For 500 million Europeans For growth and employment 1.4 % Citizenship, freedom, security and justice Natural resources: rural development, environment and fisheries 10.9 % 40.8 % 6.4 % The
More informationScottish Third Sector European Structural Funds
TSEF 23 April Annex D EDDE Scottish Third Sector European Structural Funds 2014-20 3/15/2013 SCVO John Ferguson Scottish Third Sector - European Structural Funds 2014-20 An initial scoping paper designed
More informationDRAFT TEMPLATE AND GUIDELINES ON THE CONTENT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT OF THE
DRAFT TEMPLATE AND GUIDELINES ON THE CONTENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT This is a draft document based on the new ESIF Regulations published in OJ 347 of 20 December 2013 and on the most recent version
More informationUK Autumn Budget impact on Scotland
SPICe Briefing Pàipear-ullachaidh SPICe UK Autumn Budget 2017 - impact on Scotland Ross Burnside The UK Government's Autumn Budget 2017 was published on 22 November. This briefing summarises some of the
More informationDRAFT REPORT. EN United in diversity EN. European Parliament 2017/2225(INI)
European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee on Regional Development 2017/2225(INI) 11.4.2018 DRAFT REPORT on the impact of EU cohesion policy on Northern Ireland (2017/2225(INI)) Committee on Regional Development
More informationCOMPROMISE AMENDMENTS A - C
European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee on Employment and Social Affairs 2018/2024(BUD) 18.6.2018 COMPROMISE AMDMTS A - C (PE620.889v01-00) 2019 budget - Trilogue mandate (2018/2024(BUD)) AM\1155373.docx
More informationEmployment Related Services Association
Employment Related Services Association Response: Smith Commission call for evidence October 2014 1. Introduction 1.1 This paper has been developed by the Employment Related Services Association (ERSA),
More informationThe CAP after Round tables on the green architecture of the CAP. #FutureofCAP. Brussels, 12 November 2018
The CAP after 2020 Round tables on the green architecture of the CAP Brussels, 12 November 2018 Gregorio DÁVILA DÍAZ DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission #FutureofCAP THE NEW DELIVERY
More informationAgriculture Brexit Conundrum
Agriculture Brexit Conundrum Charles Dickens: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch
More informationOeNB CEEI Conference 2018
The Role of the EU Budget Margit Schratzenstaller Austrian Institute of Economic Research WIFO OeNB CEEI Conference 2018 How to Finance Cohesion in Europe? Vienna, November 26, 2018 1 The project is research
More informationBriefing. 24 February 2016
The EU referendum and colleges Briefing The EU referendum and colleges 24 February 2016 The referendum on the UK's continuing membership of the European Union (EU) will take place on Thursday 23 June 206
More informationROMANIA AND THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY
ROMANIA AND THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY Lecturer Ph. D. Elisé Nicoleta VÂLCU Professor Ph. D. Florin - Anton BOA University of Piteti - Romania Professor Ph. D. Paula Odete FERNANDES - Portugal Keywords
More informationthinking: BRIEFING 21 Transnational EU Programmes RELEASE DATE: APRIL 2012 Please direct any questions or comments regarding this paper to:
thinking: BRIEFING 21 Transnational EU Programmes 2014-2020 RELEASE DATE: APRIL 2012 Please direct any questions or comments regarding this paper to: New Economy Tel: 0161 237 4031 E-mail: maria.gonzalez@neweconomymanchester.com
More informationAfter Brexit: Regional economic policy in Wales
After Brexit: Regional economic policy in Wales October 2017 In partnership with: Contents 1. Introduction and summary of recommendations... 2 2. Regional policy context... 4 Structural funds in Wales...
More informationCOHESION POLICY
COMMUNITY-LED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT COHESION POLICY 2014-2020 The European Commission adopted legislative proposals for cohesion policy for 2014-2020 in October 2011 This factsheet is one in a series highlighting
More informationEUROPEAN COUNCIL Brussels, 8 February 2013
EUROPEAN COUNCIL Brussels, 8 February 2013 EUCO 37/13 CO EUR 5 CONCL 3 COVER NOTE from : General Secretariat of the Council to : Delegations Subject : EUROPEAN COUNCIL 7/8 FEBRUARY 2013 CONCLUSIONS (MULTIANNUAL
More informationArticles 42 to 44 - LEADER. Articles 58-66
DRAFT GUIDANCE FICHE FOR DESK OFFICERS ARRANGEMENTS ON TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT VERSION 2 22/01/2014 RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN THE LEGISLATION Regulation Common Provisions Regulation (N 1303/2013) ERDF Regulation
More informationLabour s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals
Labour s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals IFS Briefing Note BN209 Stuart Adam Andrew Hood Robert Joyce David Phillips Labour s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals
More informationEuropean Economic and Social Committee OPINION. of the European Economic and Social Committee on. (exploratory opinion)
European Economic and Social Committee SOC/391 The future of the European Social Fund after 2013 Brussels, 15 March 2011 OPINION of the European Economic and Social Committee on The future of the European
More informationKey elements of the Commission proposal for the future European Social Fund
Key elements of the Commission proposal for the future 2014-2020 Thomas Bender Head of Unit Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion DG London, 8 December 2011 1 Guiding political principles of the reform
More informationSUBMISSION FROM JOHN MCLAREN, FISCAL AFFAIRS SCOTLAND
SUBMISSION FROM JOHN MCLAREN, FISCAL AFFAIRS SCOTLAND Finance Committee - pre attendance written submission with regards to the questions outlined in the Committee s call for written evidence on Chapter
More informationBriefing on Children s Budgeting
Briefing on Children s Budgeting What is Children s Budgeting? Children s budgeting is an attempt to separate the total expenditure that benefits children and young people from a government s entire spending.
More informationESF Evaluation Partnership 17 November Key elements of the Commission proposal for the future ESF
ESF Evaluation Partnership 17 November 2011 Key elements of the Commission proposal for the future ESF 2014-2020 Thomas Bender DG EMPL, Unit E1, ESF Policy and Legislation Legislative package The General
More informationFriendsofthePresidencygroup(MFF) MultiannualFinancialFramework( ) -SectionoftheNegotiatingBoxrelatingtoHeading1(cohesionandCEF)
ConseilUE COUNCILOF THEEUROPEANUNION PUBLIC Brusels,20 March2012 7635/12 LIMITE CADREFIN143 POLGEN46 NOTE from: to: Subject: Presidency FriendsofthePresidencygroup(MFF) MultiannualFinancialFramework(2014-2020)
More informationWoHIT, Nice Thursday 3 April 2014
WoHIT, Nice Thursday 3 April 2014 Funding and Financial Models for Digital Health The ABC of European Funding Nicole Denjoy COCIR Secretary General What does COCIR do? COCIR is a non-profit trade association,
More informationNAT-VI/006 4th meeting of the Commission for Natural Resources, 19 June 2015 WORKING DOCUMENT. Commission for Natural Resources
NAT-VI/006 4th meeting of the Commission for Natural Resources, 19 June 2015 WORKING DOCUMENT Commission for Natural Resources The simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Rapporteur: Anthony
More informationLight at the end of the fiscal tunnel? Scotland s public spending pressures
Light at the end of the fiscal tunnel? Scotland s public spending pressures Light at the end of the fiscal tunnel? Foreword In our accompanying report, Light at the end of the fiscal tunnel?, we highlighted
More informationInvesting in children through the post-2020 European Multiannual Financial Framework POSITION PAPER
2 Investing in children through the post-2020 European Multiannual Financial Framework POSITION PAPER FEBRUARY 2018 3 About Eurochild Eurochild advocates for children s rights and well-being to be at the
More informationAssuring the Success of EU Projects (ECQA Certified EU Project Manager)
Assuring the Success of EU Projects (ECQA Certified EU Project Manager) Skills international GmbH, Grossklein / Austria M.Sc. Andrea Fenz, fenz@skills-int.com Abstract. The paper describes future challenges
More informationREGIONAL COUNCIL OF LAPLAND
REGIONAL COUNCIL OF LAPLAND OPINION 20 January 2011 North Finland EU Office Allan Perttunen RE: Opinion of the Regional Council of Lapland about issues related to the 5th Cohesion Report Reference: 31
More informationSTAKEHOLDER VIEWS on the next EU budget cycle
STAKEHOLDER VIEWS on the next EU budget cycle Introduction In 2015 the EU and its Member States signed up to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) framework. This is a new global framework which, if
More informationRegulatory Implications under BREXIT
Regulatory Implications under BREXIT Policy Area Regulation*/ EU bodies Likelihood of change Description of Risk / Opportunity Agriculture, fisheries and food Direct Payments Rural Development Direct support
More informationGrant to Welsh Government, and Wales Office funding
Departmental Spending Grant to, and Wales Office funding Departmental spend 3% Day-to-day Spending (Resource DEL) Grant 16,000 14,000 1,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000,000 Reduction in budget from last year:
More informationRecommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION. on the 2018 National Reform Programme of Poland
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.5.2018 COM(2018) 420 final Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on the 2018 National Reform Programme of Poland and delivering a Council opinion on the 2018 Convergence
More informationCHILD POVERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL
CHILD POVERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL POLICY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION 1. As required under Rule 9.3.3 of the Parliament s Standing Orders, this Policy Memorandum is published to accompany the Child Poverty (Scotland)
More informationS&D POSITION PAPER SUMMARY ON EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY A REVIEW FOR SUCCESS
POSITION PAPER - SUMMARY S&D POSITION PAPER SUMMARY ON EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY A REVIEW FOR SUCCESS OUT OF THE CRISIS - A BETTER ECONOMIC MODEL FOR EUROPE Financing a better Europe Date: 16 March 2016 European
More informationInvesting in regions: The reformed EU Cohesion Policy
Investing in regions: The reformed EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 Presentation by David Müller, Member of cabinet For Alpeuregio summer school Cohesion policy Basics on EU Cohesion Policy Cohesion policy
More informationBrexit and the Fisheries Bill the Government Perspective. Jo Anderson Fisheries Bill and Engagement
Brexit and the Fisheries Bill the Government Perspective Jo Anderson Fisheries Bill and Engagement Today s presentation Will cover how the legislative framework will enable us to deliver more sustainable
More informationFinancial scrutiny uncovered. A guide for Members by the Committee Office Scrutiny Unit
Financial scrutiny uncovered A guide for Members by the Committee Office Scrutiny Unit 3rd Edition November 2017 2 Contents Introduction 4 Parliamentary scrutiny of financial management 6 Taxation and
More informationEdexcel (B) Economics A-level
Edexcel (B) Economics A-level Theme 2: The Wider Economic Environment 2.5 The Economic Cycle 2.5.2 Circular flow of income, expenditure and output Notes The circular flow of income Firms and households
More informationDepartment for Work and Pensions Main Estimate 2013/14 Select Committee Memorandum. Table of Contents. Introduction 1-2. Overview of Estimate 3
Department for Work and Pensions Main Estimate 2013/14 Select Committee Memorandum Table of Contents Section Paragraph Introduction 1-2 Overview of Estimate 3 Explanation of Estimate Funding 4-17 Comparison
More informationEU Cohesion Policy
EU Cohesion Policy 2014 2020 Proposals from the European Commission Cohesion Policy Structure of the presentation 1. What is the impact of EU cohesion policy? 2. Why is the Commission proposing changes
More informationGrant to Northern Ireland Government, and Northern Ireland Office funding
Departmental Spending Grant to Northern Ireland Government, and Northern Ireland Office funding Northern Ireland Government Day-to-day Spending (Resource DEL) Spending Review 2015 Northern Ireland Govt
More informationMultiannual Financial Framework : Commission proposal
BRIEFING 221-227 MFF Multiannual Financial Framework 221-227: Commission proposal Initial comparison with the current MFF SUMMARY On 2 May, the Commission presented its proposal for the Multiannual Financial
More informationThe funding possibilities to build up adaptation capacities and take action
The funding possibilities to build up adaptation capacities and take action Federica Alcozer Studio GAP associati, planning consultant Water and risk management facing climate change: towards the local
More informationSummary How oil and gas energy businesses would be affected if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.
Running an oil or gas business if there s no Brexit deal Summary How oil and gas energy businesses would be affected if the UK leaves the EU with no deal. Detail If the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 without
More informationWorking paper No.14. Devolved income tax: forecasting by tax bands
Working paper No.14 Devolved income tax: forecasting by tax bands Paul Mathews September 2018 Devolved income tax: forecasting by tax bands Paul Mathews Office for Budget Responsibility Abstract Following
More informationEU Exit. Long-term economic analysis November Cm 9741
EU Exit Long-term economic analysis November 2018 Cm 9741 EU Exit Long-term economic analysis November 2018 Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty November 2018 Cm 9741
More informationRolling Brexit Briefing
Rolling Brexit Briefing February 2018 edition Introduction Our rolling Brexit briefing is now structured in two parts: Part one, the Brexit update, serves both as a single reference document on all key
More informationEU SIF Briefing Session:
EU SIF 2014 2020 Briefing Session: BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE FUNDS GOVERNANCE BUSINESS PROCESS STRATEGY EVERYTHING ELSE (Q+A) EU SIF 2014 2020 Briefing: Three European Union Structural and Investment Funds
More informationBorrowing powers in the Scotland Bill Scottish Government. Summary. June 2011
Borrowing powers in the Scotland Bill Scottish Government June 2011 Summary The financial reforms proposed in the Scotland Bill must be based on clear and objective principles to ensure that the new framework
More informationSCOTLAND S FISCAL DEFICIT
SCOTLAND S FISCAL DEFICIT or THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM SUMMARY REPORT May 2017 Update 1 Chart 1 25 20 15 20 12 18 19 14 SUMMARY Scotland's deficit billions 17 13 16 14 15 15 14 14 10 10 9 7 5 5 4 2 0 *Author
More informationMultiannual Financial Framework and Agriculture & Rural Development
Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 and Agriculture & Rural Development David CHMELIK Unit R1 Information & Communication DG BUDGET EUROPEAN COMMISSION Multifunctional Landscapes Warsaw 13 May 2013
More informationBriefing: Developing the Scotland Rural Development Programme
Briefing: Developing the Scotland Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 Summary The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) has explicit environmental objectives and remains the most significant
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union L 347/259
20.12.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 347/259 REGULATION (EU) No 1299/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 December 2013 on specific provisions for the support from the
More informationSPICe Briefing European Union Funding in Scotland
The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Parliament Infor mation C entre l ogos. SPICe Briefing European Union Funding in Scotland 2014-2020 Iain McIver and Simon Wakefield 7 November 2016 16/89 This briefing,
More informationEuropean Structural and Investment Funds East Dunbartonshire Council
European Structural and Investment Funds East Dunbartonshire Council INTRODUCTION East Dunbartonshire Council (EDC) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Committee s inquiry into the European Structural
More informationWELFARE REFORM AND WORK BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES
WELFARE REFORM AND WORK BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES What these notes do These Explanatory Notes relate to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as brought from the House of Commons on. These Explanatory Notes have
More informationEU Funding for Scottish Shellfish. Richard Slaski Marine Scotland, Fisheries and Grants Team
EU Funding for Scottish Shellfish Richard Slaski Marine Scotland, Fisheries and Grants Team Today Part 1 - Background European Funds Progress towards EMFF A new approach Part 2 Q&A Shellfish targets 2020
More informationScrutiny Unit Economics in Practice
Public sector pay This is the third article in the Scrutiny Unit s occasional series. 1 It focuses on some of the current issues surrounding public sector pay, and attempts to use economic concepts to
More informationFinancing Climate Action by the ESIF
Financing by the ESIF 2014-2020 Presented by Dina Silina, European Commission, DG EUSBSR Annual Forum Stockholm, 8 November 2016 Key observed and projected climate change and impacts for the main regions
More informationRecommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION. on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Germany
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 22.5.2017 COM(2017) 505 final Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Germany and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Stability
More informationCOHESION POLICY
INTEGRATED SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COHESION POLICY 2014-2020 The European Commission adopted legislative proposals for cohesion policy for 2014-2020 in October 2011 This factsheet is one in a series
More informationWhat budget for the EU? Principles, spending priorities and the impact of Brexit
What budget for the EU? Principles, spending priorities and the impact of Brexit Zsolt Darvas and Guntram B. Wolff, Bruegel Thanks to Yana Myachenkova, Nicolas Moës and David Pichler for excellent research
More information